I read Nathan Bomey’s article in AnnArbor.com covering the speech given by (former) Gov. Mitt Romney in the Danto auditorium at the University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center on May 12. I entered the room, as did many, with the thought that Romney should completely disavow RomneyCare as well as discredit ObamaCare. That would present a problem in that he would be criticized if he did, as a flip-flop, and then if he didn’t, as supporting ObamaCare.

In his speech, he told the audience that to disavow the Massachusetts plan would be dishonest, and then he went on to say that there were some features that he vetoed but was overridden, and there were some other features that he would have, in hindsight, done differently.

As in any situation you accept the best you can get and continue on with your life. Some conservatives are criticizing him for not disavowing, and the liberals are egging them on so that they can make political hay. Gov. Romney went through his proposed program explaining the differences between it and ObamaCare.

I asked if it could be possible to have the program provide the medical providers with a way to recover the cost of medical procedures by going after the property of those who have the means to buy insurance but refuse and rely on the government to cover the charges because I am concerned that the freeloaders will overload the system financially. I think that the fear of having a lien imposed upon their property would give incentive to people to purchase insurance.

Everyone should want to purchase medical insurance. No one should need to be required by the government to purchase medical insurance, nor should they depend upon the government to pay their medical bills.

Government should permit the deduction of medical insurance costs from the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income on the front page of tax Form 1040, not as part of medical costs on Schedule A with a deduction of 7.5%. This would allow the poor to deduct the cost on their tax forms. The cost to the poor could be adjusted as a percentage of income.

I left the room very satisfied with Romney’s explanation of the reason RomneyCare was enacted, since it was the best you could expect in Massachusetts. Romney's proposed medical program would be very good for the country. Depend on the states to enact a system that fits their state.

Portability was covered, as well as tax treatment for medical policy cost.

As far as I know, not one of the people at the speech was asked his or her opinion. I am sure that not one of the questioners were interviewed. I did notice that the comments on the speech, in Bomey’s article, were from liberal opponents such as Rep. (John) Dingell, so what would you expect?

Washtenaw Republican Chairman Mark Boonstra was in attendance and was not interviewed. The other two interviews were of people I don’t know but they both had an interest in continuing Medicaid in its present form. Interviewing other possible Republican candidates, of course, yields predictable results.

— Charles Stevens, Ann Arbor